出自《恐怖的法官——納粹時(shí)期的司法》一書

事實(shí)上，納粹時(shí)期的法官遠(yuǎn)比電影中描述的要邪惡得多，德國司法機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)納粹上臺(tái)起著推波助瀾的作用，在其上臺(tái)后更是鞍前馬后、為虎作倀，所謂的實(shí)證主義法學(xué)與自由主義法學(xué)的爭(zhēng)論更是偽命題，德國法官們不僅完完全全忠實(shí)的遵守了納粹的法律，他們?cè)趯?duì)政治犯的迫害上鼓足干勁，積極地運(yùn)用國家利益、國家安全等理由對(duì)政治犯進(jìn)行量刑，一位購買了一份共產(chǎn)黨報(bào)紙的工人就被視為要參與顛覆納粹政權(quán)的行動(dòng)，在種族問題方面，司法實(shí)踐中將接吻、交談等行為都通通上升為了《保護(hù)德意志血統(tǒng)法》中的性行為，更是主動(dòng)積極地提出了許多理論以幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)納粹的統(tǒng)治，《恐怖的法官》一書進(jìn)行了無情的揭露與批判，算是把德國法學(xué)界底褲都拔掉了，值得各位閱讀以加深對(duì)影片的理解。

德國法律界公開宣稱應(yīng)當(dāng)擯棄實(shí)證主義思維

歷史是由勝利者書寫的，亦即審判者。德國對(duì)猶太的惡，日本對(duì)中國的惡，意大利對(duì)本國人的惡，可能會(huì)受到審判。那美國對(duì)越南的惡呢？蘇聯(lián)對(duì)波蘭的惡呢？無人可予以審判。更不能審判的，是漢回蒙滿糾纏千年的、無數(shù)次的、遍及神州的、尸首千萬的彼此屠戮。而同樣的情況，又發(fā)生在東南亞、南北美、歐非中東至全世界，至人類全部的歷史。誰又會(huì)去為尼安德特人公訴呢？

Judge Haywood: The trial conducted before this Tribunal began over eight months ago. The record of evidence is more than ten thousand pages long, and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

Heir Rolfe, in his very skillful defense, has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilization. But the Tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions, men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men, men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings, men who in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws -- illegal even under German law. The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime -- is guilty.

Heir Rolfe further asserts that the defendant, Janning, was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the Government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial: If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary -- even able and extraordinary -- men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them: men sterilized because of political belief; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

開場(chǎng)推焦納粹標(biāo)志逐漸放大，然后爆炸升格。61年這么玩兒很前衛(wèi)。13min鏡頭圍繞發(fā)言的韋德馬克一周。17min整對(duì)馬克西米藍(lán)謝爾直接用了一個(gè)邵氏鏡頭！因?yàn)樵谶@個(gè)鏡頭中直接讓謝爾從經(jīng)翻譯的德語改用英文致辭。

此片中雖然馬克思米蘭謝爾用德語口語的英語與法官曲塞對(duì)話（此情形同樣見于此片中其他跨國別對(duì)話，但有意思的是，蒙蒂克利夫和蘭卡斯特這兩位扮演德國人的演員都并不會(huì)說德語）明明雙方都能夠不經(jīng)由翻譯而明白彼此，但卻仍在戲劇動(dòng)作上還原真實(shí)情況：默認(rèn)二人使用語言不通而要抓起聽筒通過同聲傳譯交流。

而在另一段落傳喚蒙蒂克利夫扮演的證人上庭時(shí)，美國控方韋德馬克先像他詢問，二人通過傳譯交流，此時(shí)克里夫特的表演格外突出了這種因語言不暢和翻譯的略微延遲而導(dǎo)致的溝通卡頓和頻繁思索。而在韋德馬克完成詢問后，謝爾代表的德籍律師接手，他建議克里夫特“拿下傳譯聽筒直接交流”，可事實(shí)上我們看到，他們兩人仍用英語完成了對(duì)話，韋德馬克方才也是這么做的。當(dāng)然，在此片中也有特殊橋段：開庭時(shí)屈塞質(zhì)詢蘭卡斯特是否認(rèn)罪服辯，蘭卡斯特不為所動(dòng)，此時(shí)謝爾像庭上提出抗議，“原告對(duì)于法庭的審判權(quán)力表示懷疑”一句謝爾用德語發(fā)言，鏡頭給到傳譯員，用英語復(fù)述庭上。此后所有本應(yīng)需要傳譯介入的對(duì)話，在視聽上均無具體鏡頭表述，也沒有讓演員用除英語之外的語言發(fā)言。僅僅只有剛才所講的戴上或摘下傳譯器的動(dòng)作表述。我們可以說，在這個(gè)美國電影中，英語毫無疑問是占有絕對(duì)霸權(quán)地位的，導(dǎo)演每一次讓其他語言“闖入”，都是別有用心的詞語調(diào)度，在這里更像是是一種“戲劇語氣”的表述，觀眾在熟悉的詞句語調(diào)中幾乎處于一種“語言的無意識(shí)”狀態(tài)、此時(shí)唯一的主導(dǎo)是影像事件的發(fā)生，而外語的“不和諧音”的突然介入，打破了這種狀態(tài)，使觀眾從影像語言空間中驚醒，又回到了日常的語言空間，這讓觀眾驟然感到陌生，從而警覺地思索到“影像”這種正在發(fā)生的存在，進(jìn)而，觀眾反應(yīng)到：謝爾只不過在扮演著一個(gè)角色罷了，這是我們面前的一出好戲！但紐倫堡審判作為一個(gè)真實(shí)的歷史事件毋庸置疑，這就形成了一種參照關(guān)系，一種互文性——影像獨(dú)立于現(xiàn)實(shí)又再生產(chǎn)之。而影片持續(xù)進(jìn)行，事件的推進(jìn)讓觀眾來不及思索這一表述的內(nèi)涵遍被迫被其裹挾前進(jìn)，他們?cè)谟跋癯掷m(xù)不斷的推進(jìn)力的包裹下放棄了對(duì)于實(shí)在的追求而將自身和判斷力完全交給了銀幕上的發(fā)生。聽之任之，直到落幕，才可能從中醒來，但這一種知覺卻不會(huì)因此消彌，而會(huì)不斷的侵蝕我們的日常語言經(jīng)驗(yàn)。好萊塢也正是在這樣的互文性之中不斷加強(qiáng)影像的神秘主義傾向和對(duì)觀眾的精神控制，用另一種“語言”說教、輸出、批判、緬懷…如此片中一些段落，操控了觀眾的情緒，用這樣一種手段，一種極為高明的導(dǎo)演把戲，一種運(yùn)用電影的自我呈現(xiàn)機(jī)制而達(dá)到戲劇效果的絕妙手筆。

于是，我們看見了一個(gè)重要問題——語言在電影（另一種籠罩性的語言）中幾乎無關(guān)緊要，重要的則是不可說的現(xiàn)實(shí)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的具象化及一種超語言邏輯的行為方法。這也即影像的存在，作為一種知覺的存在。而在今天，它幾乎強(qiáng)大到可以和語言分庭抗禮。